Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax(law) Board of Revenue(taxes), Ernakulam v. Advani Oorlikon(p) Ltd. Trivandrum

. ( PATHAK, J: This appeal by special leave raises the questiott ' whether for the· purpose of computing the turnover assessed to sal~s -----, ta~ under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the sale price of goods IS · dc~crmined by including the amount paid by way of tr:tde discount. l . The assessee is a private limited company carrying on busin6'> ns sole selling agent for a certain brand of welding ekctrcxles. Fcrr the pood~ Jupplied to retailers, it charged them the catalo~e price t~~ trade discount. 111e catalogue price is the price which the rctaikr ts entitled to char~e the c~n~umcr. For the "asse-ssment }'.!ar 1971-72. th~ returns filed un(kr the Central S:.1lcs Ta:'( Act, 1956 showed a ta:tlb e ·). turnover or ·inter-State sales amounting to Rs. 8,71.624. This figut f wa~ derived by deducting from the c:J.talogue price tho amount 0 • ., Rs. 1,06,708 paid as trade disconnt by the assessee to retailers. '{'be" ->- •C;S.T. v. J.DVANI OORLIKON (Pathak, 1.) 933 Sales Tax Officer refused to allow the deduction and computed the taxable turnover at Rs. 9,78,332. The Sales Tax Officer was of the view that the amount paid by way of trade discount could not be excluded from the catalogue price. The assessee appealed, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld its claim t_hat trade dis­ count did not ·form part of the turnover, and it could not therefore attract sales tax. A second appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue applied in revision to the High Court of Kerala and the revision application has been dismissed . . The Revenue appeals. It is contended before us by the Revenue that the High Court has erred in affirming that an amount paid by way· of trade discount cannot be included in the taxable turnover for the purpose of assessment. It is pointed out that the definition of '"sale price" in section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act permits the deduction of sums allowed as cash discount only and makes no reference to sums allowed by way of trade discount. It i:; contended that in effect the assessee enters into two distinct contracts with the retailer, the first contract relates to' the sale of goods at the catalogue price and the second contract stipulates that n<>!!Vithstanding the liability of the reta~ler under the first contract to pay the entire sale price, he may actually pay the sale price less trade discount. On that submission, it is sought to be urged that since the sale is effected under the first contract, the entire amount treated E as consideration for the sale under that contract has to be included in the taxable turnover. We. have considered the matter carefully and in our judgment the appeal must fail. At the 'outset, i;: is appropriate that we set forth the two relevant definitions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 2(j) defines "turnover" to mean "the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by him (the dealer) in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inler-State trade or commerce .......... ". And section 2(h) of the Act defines the expression "sale price'' to mean "the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum aliowed as cash discount according to the prac- tice normally prevailing in tbe trade ....... _ .. ". It is true that a deduction on account of cash discount is alone specifically contemp­ lated from the sale consideration in the definition of "sale price" by section 2 (h), and there is ·no· doubt that cash discount cannot be con~ fused with trade di~;count. The two concepts are wholly distinct and ·separate. Cash discount is allowed when the purchaser makes payment 934 SUPREME COURT REPOltTS [1980].1 S.C.R. promptly or within the period of credit allowed. It is a discount granted in consideration of expeditious payment. A trade discount is a deduc­ tion from the catalogue price of goods allowed by wholesalers t~ retailers engaged in the trade. The allowance enables the retailer to sell the goods at the catalogue price and yet make a reasonable margin of profit after taking, into account his business expense. The outward' invoice sent by a wholesale dealer to a retailer shows the catalogue' price and against that a deduction of the trade discount is shown. The net amount is the sale pii.ce, and it is that net amount which is entered in the books of the respective parties as the amount realisable~ Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa. C) Under the Central Sales Tax Act, the sale price which enters intO' the computation of the turnover is the consideration for which the· goods are sold by the assessee. In a case where trade discount is allowed on the catalogue price, the sale price is the amount determined' after deducting the trade discount. The trade discount does not enter into the composition of the sale price, but exists apart from and out­ side it and prior to it. It is immaterial that the definition of "sale price''" in &ection 2 (h) of the Act does not e:xpressly provide for the deduc­ tion of trade discount from the sale price. Indeed, having regard to the circumstance that the sale price is arrived ,at after dedufting the trade· discount, no q~estion arises of deducting from the sale price any sum by way of trade discount Nor is there any question here of two successive agreements between the parties, one providing for sale of the. goods at the· catalogue price and the other providing for an allowance by way of" trade discount. Having regard to the nature of a trade discount, there, 'is only one. sale price betwehn the· dealer and the retailer, and that is the price p_ayable by the retailer calculated as the difference between' the catalogue price· and the trade discount. There is only one contract between the parties, the contract being that the goods will be sold by the dealer to the retailer at the. aforesaid sale price. We have been referred to Ambica Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. (') Where the Gujarat High Court rejected the claim of the manufacturer to a deduction of the remission allowed' from the sale price to the purchaser on account of a general fall in prices when delivery of the goods was effected. In our opinion, the case supports the vi~w we are taking. The sale price remained the stipulated price in the contract between the parties. The fail in prices- (1) (1975) 35 S.T.C. 84. (2) (1964) 15 S.T.C. 367 ~· C.S.T . V. ADVA~I OORLIKON (Pathak, .J.) 935 occurred after the contract of sale had been finalised, ano with a view to relieving th~ purchaser to some extent of the loss which could have been occasioned thereby, the ma~ufacturcr sought to bear part of the loss by granting a rebate or remission to the purchaser. The Revenue relies on India Pistons Limited v. State of Tamil Nadtt. ( ') In that case, the bqnus of which deduction was sought by the assessee from the turnover was paid under a bonus discount scheme, not to all customers but only to distributors whose net purchases from the assessee exceeded the target figure agreed to between the parties. The amount of rebate allowed was credited to the customer's account and treated as a reserve from which the distributors could make future pur­ chases. The rebate of bonus discount was not allowed as a deduc­ tion by tbe Mcldras High Court and, in our opinion, rightly so. It was in the Dature of an incentive· bonus paid to distributors whose. net pur­ chases exceeded the target figure~ It did not, and could not, affect the sale value of the goods sold by the assessee. The sale price remained undisturbed in the contract be.tween the parties. In our judgment, the sale price which enters into the computation of ~ assessee''s turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act is obtained after deducting the trade discount from the catalc.gue price. The trade discount allowed by the assessee cannot be included in the turnover. ·- In the resulc, the appeal fails and is dismissed with. costs. N.K.A Appeal dismissed. (1) [1974] 33 S.T.C. 472 8